publication of the American Society for Microbiology, could publish 
new packaging ideas- Dr. McVicar liked the idea of an ASM-led 
dissemination of such ideas, though he feared that his office would 
be deluged with new packaging ideas. Dr. McKinney suggested the 
deletion of "etiologic agent” from the illustration’s title. He 
noted that an etiologic agent still required labeling as such; 
therefore, this would not be a major change in the NIH Guidelines. 
Mr. Brewer noted that the Subcommittee appeared to agree that the 
illustration should be viewed as a method for the shipment of 
recombinant DNA products, and not exclusively of etiologic agents. 
First, he asked if Dr. Atlas' language should be accepted or 
amended. Second, he asked whether the Subcommittee could recommend 
the exclusion of organisms kept in BL1 containment from the 
regulations for the shipment of etiologic agents. Third, he asked 
if transgenic animals were adequately covered; current requirements 
might make live delivery impossible, which he hoped to avoid. Dr. 
McVicar believed that the shipment of animals will not be covered. 
The regulations were not intended to apply to animals , and so a 
special case must be made. Dr. McKinney asked if the Department of 
Agriculture already covered animals. Dr. Langston stated that the 
preamble would cover animals if "organisms" were substituted for 
the narrower "microorganisms." The host organism would be subject 
to the shipping regulations. A shipper must still decide how to 
transport an animal. Dr. McVicar suggested that transgenic animals 
be treated on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Langston believed that the 
case-by-case method need not be stated; people would seek ways to 
send animals in accordance with the regulations. 
Dr. Atlas stated that regulations for BL1 and BL2 containment 
cannot cover host organisms that are etiologic. Cases that pose no 
health hazards to humans, or only a slight one, could not appear in 
Appendix B. Dr. McKinney stated that Class 1 agents were neither 
synonymous with BL1 containment nor do they cover exempted 
categories. For example, a Class 1 agent may require BL3 
containment. People frequently fail to recognize that containment 
levels depend on the infectiousness of the end product rather than 
the technique that created the recombinant DNA product. For 
example, work with whole infectious agents, such as rabies or MTV, 
may require work at BL2 or BL3 containment. However, if an 
extracted DNA sequence from these agents is non-inf ectious , even if 
inserted into an E. coli host, work can continue under a status 
exempt from the containment requirements. 
Mr. Brewer noted that host organisms containing recombinant DNA 
molecules derived from etiologic agents in Appendix B may cause 
problems. Dr. McKinney emphasized that the expression of 
recombinant DNA products is the critical factor. Dr. McVicar 
argued that the inclusion in the NIH Guidelines of all recombinant 
DNA pieces from microorganisms could lead to overly stringent 
standards. Dr. Atlas concluded that additions to the language were 
helpful. 
[296] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
